Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 7096926" data-attributes="member: 37579">The fighter is fine.The class is distinct and does its thing and it does it well and simply, all while breaking new ground in what the class does and should do. 5e didn't just do the classic fighter things (feats, more attacks) but added new iconic powers to the fighter. Which is damn hard, Action Surge is simple but powerful and also allows the fighter to hold their own. Are they potentially not as good as some of the other classes? Maybe. But that's a moot point as you don't get a fighter and a barbarian and a paladin and a ranger all at the same table at the same time. Let alone played with equal skill and equally hot dice. It doesn't matter if another character would/could be better than a fighter, because that other character isn't in play. It's a theoretical problem, and not one that actual affects gameplay at the table. Which makes it infinitely less pressing than any other problem that has an actual impact on table quality of life. Realistically, there is always going to be a last place. And if the worst thing about the fighter is that it isn't outright better than the other classes, that's not a bad thing. It's not broken... the horror.But even that's debatable. There's been a lot of charts that show the fighter able to hold their own in expected DPR. Especially when their cool things recharge after short rests. I guess I just don't see the point of being negative. It's a fighter that doesn't become a caddy after level 10. That's a win right there. People like playing it. It's a flexible class equally adept as a sword-and-board, swashbuckler, archer, of great weapon weilder. The game isn't perfect, but no game ever will. Chess isn't perfect and 1000 years was spent tweaking and refining the game.</blockquote>

Verification